A reader asks about the act of voting

A reader asks, very reasonably: “So, Mr. Shea, what is the solution? I want to vote prudently with my conscience as my guide. Yet still make my vote worthwhile, which at this time of the political season, it is. What now?”

I think the answer lies in thinking differently about what the act of voting is and what it does. Tom Kreitzberg has wisely said that “The act of voting is the stone in the stone soup of political responsibility for Catholic citizens of democratic countries.” I think this is basically true. The real action in deciding what happens to the fate of a nation occurs not at the ballot box, but with political involvement (or lack thereof) by the citizenry at much lower grassroots (and non-political) levels of culture and family life. That’s not to say voting is meaningless. Far from it. It is intensely meaningful. But *what* it means is not primarily about how my puny vote will affect the outcome of an election involving millions of other people. It is, rather, how my puny vote will change me.

Whenever I venture to say that I will not support a candidate who supports grave and intrinsic evil which, according to the Church, is worthy of the everlasting fires of hell, I can generally be assured that a certain percentage of people will feel as though I am sitting in judgment of their vote and telling them heaven and hell depends on whether they agree with my vote. Let me therefore repeat that I neither say, imply, nor believe any such thing. I have no window for peering into other people’s souls and knowing why they do what they do. I agree completely with Cdl. Ratzinger, who wrote in 2004:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

Given that I agree with Cdl. Ratzinger completely and have repeatedly stated so, the question is: why would some folk assume I believe that “It’s my way or the highway” when voting for a candidate who advocates grave and intrinsic evil? To answer that, I must note several paradoxical things about this letter.

First, it is typically quoted in order to buttress the reply, “It’s okay for me to vote for a conservative who advocates grave and intrinsic evil if I do so for proportionate reasons” That is absolutely true and I have never denied it. However, do please note that while it is applicable to situations involving a vote for a conservative candidate, that’s not what the letter actually has in view. What it has in view is, in fact, those people who vote for a candidate like Obama (who advocates the grave and intrinsic evil of abortion) for what they view as “proportionate reasons.” Essentially, Cdl. Ratzinger is saying that it is possible for somebody to vote for Obama (or whoever) if they are voting for him, not out of support for abortion and/or euthanasia, but for some other reason they, in conscience, think outweighs abortion or euthanasia or, perhaps, because they even think that other policies by such a politician will effectively reduce the need for abortion or euthanasia. (I myself have trouble imagining such a rationale but it remains a fact that Cdl. Ratzinger is, at the end of the day, saying that just because somebody votes for a pro-abort/euthanasia pol does not mean they are, ipso facto, supporting abortion and euthanasia.)

Which leads to our second point. Namely, again and again I run into readers who confidently declare things like “Voting for Obama is a sin.” Full stop. Period. In other words, large numbers of conservative Catholics who appeal to Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter as a justification for their proportional reason for supporting a righty candidate who advocates grave and intrinsic evil flatly deny what Cdl. Ratzinger says when he addresses the question for which he wrote the letter: namely, that it is conceivable that somebody might actually vote for a lefty candidate without incurring sin—even a lefty candidate who supports abortion and euthanasia. In short, while Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter is actually intended to say, “Don’t support abortion and euthanasia, but don’t sit in judgment of others who may vote for a pro-abort/pro-euthanasia candidate since they might have what they feel to be proportional reasons,” it is instead routinely pressed into the cause of saying, “Proportional reasons for me, but not for thee.” This really is a species of judgmentalism since it claims to possess knowledge of the souls of millions of Catholic Obama voters we cannot possibly have.

Which brings me to my third point: namely, that while I agree completely with Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter, I also note that it in no way binds me to vote for any candidate who advocates grave and intrinsic evil, whether righty or lefty. It merely tells me that I cannot sit in judgment of somebody else who does so since I do not know their reasoning and therefore cannot say they are disobeying their conscience or the Church as they vote for somebody I would never vote for. That goes not only for those who vote for GOP candidates I cannot support, but for Obama voters, as well. Quite simply, following Cdl. Ratzinger’s guidance, I believe that unless somebody tells me “I voted for candidate X because I hope the grave and intrinsic evils he advocates remain the law of the land!” I have no way of knowing why they vote for him or what proportional reasons they have in mind when they support the guy. In other words, I extend to all voters, lefty and righty, the courtesy and charity Cdl. Ratzinger says they should be extended.

However, any conservative Catholic who categorically declares, “Every Catholic who voted for Obama sinned and is not fit to be called Catholic” is not merely ignoring Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter, he is directly contradicting it. It is not surprising, then, that in their refusal to extend charity to somebody who voted for Obama, such folk should naturally assume that I don’t extend it to them. Consequently, I am constantly informed by readers that I think they are going to hell or should be barred from the Eucharist because they don’t vote as I do. I believe the psychological term for this is “projection.”

Nonetheless, I do not make any such claim at all, for exactly the reasons Cdl. Ratzinger lays out in his letter. I will make very clear that I will never support a candidate who advocates grave evil. I will make clear why I will not. I will argue with other people’s attempts to persuade me that I should. But I don’t sit in judgment of people who, per Cdl. Ratzinger, vote for such candidates since I don’t know what proportional reasons they think they have that allow them to act in good conscience. I merely ask that they likewise don’t sit in judgment of me. I request that if I don’t vote like they do, folk would restrain themselves from dogmatically declaring that I “secretly support” Obama or abortion or euthanasia. I don’t. if I did, I would tell you since, as should be fairly obvious by now, I’m not shy about expressing my opinion. If I thought there was a proportional reason for voting for him or any pro-abort/euthanasia pol, I would tell you what that reason was. However, the fact is I don’t think there is such a reason, so I won’t be voting for Obama. So please: instead of “reading between the lines” about my secret love of abortion and euthanasia, just read the lines.

Which brings me to my reader’s question. Note that the focus, like the focus of most such discussion, is on how to vote “prudently” (very wise) and how to vote so as to make it “worthwhile” (an interesting choice of word). I’m all for prudent and worthwhile voting. What I think needs much more consideration is what these terms mean for our lives as citizens. These days almost nobody votes for a candidate. We usually conceive of voting as voting against somebody. So, for instance, people on both sides of the aisle fret that a vote for Candidate C is “really” a vote for hated Candidate A (if you are in the B party) or B (if you are in the A Party). That’s why, when I repeatedly say I will not be voting for Obama, I am repeatedly told I am a liberal—a zealously pro-life, anti-gay “marriage”, anti-euthanasia, Magisterium-believin’, contraception-rejectin’, Pope Benedict enthusiastic, just war believin’, capitalism-practicin’ liberal—who “secretly” supports Obama. My vote for Candidate C, who does not support grave evil (assuming he is on the ballot in my state) is not “against” Obama enough, so it must really be “for” him. In such a paradigm, the whole focus in on how one vote out of 50 million is impacting the election, not about how it is impacting the persons doing the act of voting. Consequently, what people mean about making their vote worthwhile is “How can I vote to maximize my impact on the election so that the political system does the least damage and elects the least terrible candidate? How can I vote against Candidate A most effectively, since nobody is really voting *for* anybody.”

I am coming to believe we need to see the act of voting in a very different way and it has everything to do with how I vote the way I vote. Here’s the real reason I don’t vote for any candidate who asks me to support grave intrinsic evil as policy: I regard my vote in a gigantic national election the way Jesus regarded the widow’s mite. The tiny copper coins the widow put in the Temple treasury did not affect the economic life of Israel anymore than a grain of sand creates a desert or a raindrop an ocean. Had she not put in the two copper coins, the Temple treasury would have hummed along just fine. But had she given the two copper coins to a pagan cult or fortune teller and not to God, it would have made a huge difference to her. She would have missed the chance to do right by God with the little she had and become a saint.

In the same way, the great overlooked issue in elections is that the way we vote (particularly in vast national elections) has infinitely more impact on ourselves than it does on the fate of the nation. Suppose the widow had taken her tiny copper coin and given it, not to God, but to a fortune teller. Somebody might say, “Well, it’s only only two worthless little coins, so no harm done.” But Jesus wouldn’t. It was all she had to live on, and if she gave it, not to God but to an idol, magician, fraud or quack, it would have done her soul grave harm, just as her actual gift to God, tiny as it was, did her soul great good. If I say, “I know this person means to do grave and intrinsic evil worthy of the fires of hell, but I will take my tiny copper coin of a vote and help that evil be done as far as it lies within my power to do it” I think I’m robbing God of the only thing I have to give him: my puny penny of cooperation with him. My vote will not affect the outcome of the election. But it will affect me and change me either into somebody who does or does not say yes to grave and intrinsic evil. Make that choice enough—and in enough souls—and the destiny of a nation is determined. I think the experiment of subsuming my conscience to the demands of elites who do not care about God or man (judging from their bipartisan advocacy of grave evils worthy of hellfire) has helped get us, over time, to the pass in which we now find ourselves: stuck with a political system that routinely holds us hostage and tries to compel us to assent to grave evil in the interest of the perpetually-out-of-reach “greater good”. I think my willingness to cooperate with advocates of grave evil has also helped to create a religious culture in which, astonishingly, not a few Catholics routinely tell me that desiring to avoid hell and attain heaven is contemptible perfectionism and not bare minimum human decency. I think the only way back from this is for me to resist the call to support things the Church says are hellworthy for the sake of political success and to seek rather, to tame the tool of politics to the limits God places on human acts: among them, rejection of grave intrinsic evil. That, I believe, is a truly prudent and worthwhile use of my vote.

I repeat: I make no judgment about how others vote, per Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter. Though I myself cannot see a proportional reason for supporting candidates who endorse grave intrinsic evils, I can certainly imagine that others can, as Cdl. Ratzinger charitably does. I simply request that others not keep making the foolish charge that voting in accord with the bare minimum standard of human decency that seeks to avoid the fires of hell is “perfectionism” or, sillier still, a secret love of the grave evils of abortion and euthanasia.

So: in brief, my answer to my reader is “Think different about voting.” For my part, that means only considering for high office candidates who don’t advocate grave evil. That’s not perfectionism. It’s not sanctity. That’s setting the bar as low as humanly possible. After that, other considerations come in as well. But it’s a start. If all voters did that, it would radically change our politics, because it would radically change what the electorate is willing to tolerate. But it’s not my business to sit in judgment of other voters and their proportional rationales for supporting less than ideal candidates, as Cdl. Ratzinger wisely says. It is my business to see to it that I reject the support of grave intrinsic evil—as Cdl. Ratzinger also says to do. Given that this means that I cannot find proportional reasons that could justify a vote for somebody who supports grave evil, I am bound in conscience to vote for somebody who does not, or to refrain from voting for that ballot item. I am also bound in conscience not to sit in judgement of others who vote differently.

Comments

Franklin and Mark: I can’t think of any reason proportional or non-proportional to vote for anyone from either party. As long as these people are able to collect money to run and present their story we are stuck with them and the recent SCOTUS decision will make it harder to remove any of them.

Posted by Nell on Monday, Nov 5, 2012 7:49 PM (EST):

Forget voting for the lesser of two evils—instead vote to limit evil. We know Romney’s stand is for limiting abortions, while Obama’s is for unrestricted abortions. Not voting for Romney, but for some other third-party or write-in candidate would aid Obama, and therefore does nothing to limit evil.

Posted by Cindy on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012 9:51 PM (EST):

Thank you for this article. I really enjoyed it. I am one of the persons who has asked you about voting. I just happen to believe that although my act may not turn things around, it is not my job to turn things around, it is my job to be faithful to God. It is he who will do the rest. That being said, I now understand a lot more your stance and can now say I agree with it. It resonates with what the Lord has made me feel in my life. Sometimes we get caught up in trying to bring another president or party down and don’t realize we are supporting evil by doing it and it will inevitably have consequences. Thank you!

Posted by John Lofton on Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 3:48 PM (EST):

EVERY CHRISTIAN who has ever said that the “religion” of a candidate does not matter has, wittingly or unwittingly, in so many words, thrown Jesus under the bus!

Mark, you have given me food for thought. I had always bought into the idea that a vote for Candidate A was a vote against Candidate B and it was my civic duty to vote for the lesser of two evils.

From a very civic-minded perspective, I see now how ridiculous this thinking is. Candidates of the two parties have such huge egos that (I think) they believe every vote for them is from someone who’s behind them whole-heartedly, not factoring in that they were a lesser-than-two-evils choice.

Things will never change in this country if we continue this way. We have to start voting our conscience and damn the consequences! If everyone did that, the R’s & D’s would have a better sense of just how far off the mark they are, and there might be the possibility of change (or a third-party candidate actually getting elected). The egos in politics today are too big for my liking, and as we know, EGO means Edging God Out. I want better and I’m voting to get it!

Posted by Mark Shea on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 10:02 PM (EST):

Rosemary: No. The CA guide is not dogma. It is a prudential application of the Church’s teaching, a “rule of thumb”. If you cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate (and I cannot vote for either major candidate in good conscience) then you can either vote for some other candidate who does not violate your conscience or abstain from voting in that race. Do bear in mind though, that there are lots of other races and that you should still vote in them.

Posted by Rose Mary on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 9:50 PM (EST):

“When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.”-Catholic Answers voters guide.

Is this Church Dogma? Or is it merely somebody’s opinion? If it is just an opinion are we still obliged to follow it as the Bishops said it? I just would like to know if this document means that “voting against” is now officially “What were Supposed To Do.” BECAUSE, if it is, which I do not think it is but am not certain it is not, then it means that I must vote for Obama (which I would find repugnant.)

The reason for this analysis of mine is:
1. Both Obama and Romney’s positions on the 5 non-negotiables as well as almost EVERYTHING ELSE is so vile as to almost have no real comparison between them.

2. More harm can be done in 8 years than 4, and furthermore…

3. Romney would no doubt do grave harm if elected, whether it is less than Obama or not. His agenda he wants to pursue is offensive to Christian values on a good few issues, most notably, a concept of warfare irreconcilable with the Catholic faith, and don’t say he’s making an error of prudential judgment, disagreements are allowed on the APPLICATION not the principle. (Romney and the majority of the GOP’s philosophy of war is “America is right is might is right” and that is just not anything but wrong in the Church’s book.) Add to this the fact that he and the MAJORITY of his party at the high levels don’t give a sneeze about the unwanted unborn, especially those conceived in rape and incest, and those “leftover” embryos from clinics who could be useful for research. Take a careful look at the records of Republicans for the past several decades and why do we not see that their whole “pro-life” feel-goody-goodying is just a convenient perennial issue to maintain rapport among “values voters”, like the Democrats anti-war lip-service was to get Obama in office and surprise, surprise! We still do all that lovely torture, pre-emptive, brutality to the civilians kind of thing! In the face of the Republicans comparable record on abortion, why can’t pro-lifers finally FINALLY wake up and give the conservative movement our bill of annulment? If Obama wins and tries to force his anti-Catholic agenda down our throat even worse, he’s got the hierarchy and record numbers of the laity willing to take a stand against him. The political darkening of Obama’s election ironically resulted in the light of the Church’s teachings shining all the brighter to Catholics. Might not Romney whitewashing his evil with the hypocrisy of calling himself prolife make him the greater evil to be opposed? Obama could only be here for four more years, during which he is likely to continue opposing the Church, drawing the lines, and (if there are enough Repubs in the House and Senate,) maybe even risk impeachment. If Romney wins, the right will continue making concessions to morality, while good Catholics who voted for him might feel a little too relieved that the greater evil they voted against is gone, sit back and prepare to get comfortable with nuclear extermination of Iran, and be tempted to regard abortion as a sexual morality issue that can be solved with some healthy state regulations rather than a blood-of-the-innocents-crying-out-from-the-ground-to-God issue that merits urgent national, even international attention from anyone who fears the Lord, to whom all life belongs! I wish people could realize where this idea of elect the “lesser of two evils” is going, as it always goes. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which”.

The National Right to Life, for example, endorses Mitt Romney, calling him “THE” pro-life candidate, spend massive amounts of money in his support, and chastise people who vote independent, saying that if they don’t “compromise their principles” they “compromise children’s lives.” How anyone could be delusional enough to think that the carnage stops if “pro-life” candidates are elected or its continuation is conditional to Obama being elected is beyond me. I wonder if they realize for instance that their position if carried to its logical end would mean they would endorse Adolf Hitler if he was running against Obama. After all, he made it illegal for “Aryan” women (the majority) to have an abortion. Just think, National R to C, how many abortions that prevented! Oh, NEVER MIND that he allowed (um, actually, required) abortion in some cases such as when “qualified doctors” said the parents were likely to pass on a genetic defect, or that the motive behind his prohibition was maximum population increase of the “fit” in his human breeding program. And DON’T EVEN MENTION, the 6 million Jews killed in the Holacaust, or heaven forbid, his unjust wars…After all, abortion trumps all the other life issues, remember?
Of course, I know to apply that analogy to Romney is extreme, but take a closer look at him and I hope you see that it is far closer than I am comfortable with. I’m not saying vote for Obama; I believe I shouldn’t vote for any candidates who violate serious moral issues. That is my personal opinion of course, which I am trying to form my conscience in. I will vote likely for Ron Paul write-in. I acknowledge that he has problems (Oh, no one will say it louder than me!) but he is a genuine pro-lifer, and appears to have personal integrity. If it IS Church teaching, though, that you MUST vote in the way most likely to limit the harm done by the candidates, than honestly I must vote for Obama rather than Mr. “Lesser of Two-Evils” who’s “claim” on my consience is that he’s only slightly less bad than arguably the worst president in American history, he’s got significant pro-life catholics and others at his beck and call, and everyone will bend over backward to portay him as pro-life as part of a “defeat the evil Obama at ANY cost” mentality. I believe 8 terms (potentially) of someone without morals who so many Catholics are conciliatory toward is a “graver harm” than 4 years of someone without morals who all the pro-lifers know has no morals. Mr. Shea, do you know if the CA guide is binding?

Posted by Chip on Wednesday, Aug 22, 2012 2:57 PM (EST):

I appreciate your article Mark and it did bring out a point to me that I have not seen addressed yet. I live in Illinois which I believe will not stand against Obama, but rather support him and the Democratic party. I do believe that I must stand against the evil that the Obama administration and Democrat party represents. I also believe that our current system needs the guidance of Church teaching to bring it into alignment with the dignity of the human person which it purports to serve. I do not believe that the Democratic party will adopt the guidance of the Church (as the HHS mandate is hard evidence of) without an overwhelming reason to do so. (Such as every Catholic voting for the candidate who supports the end of legalized abortion…of course only a few would be electable in that case). I do believe that we can influence the Republican party. So since I live in one of the bluest states and my vote truly will be useless if I vote Republican in the national election. This frees me up to take another look at other candidates who are more in line with Church teaching. I think if enough of us who are in those states that will go to Obama no matter what, vote in this way maybe we can cobble together enough votes to register on a national level. I also think that Catholics who vote Democrat and live in the reddest states should look for a candidate who is more in line with Church teaching, together we might be able to register enough of an impact on a national level to wake up the Republican party to change their platform or maybe even give rise to a third party that can present viable candidates who are in line with Church teaching four years from now. I can hope and pray can’t I?

Posted by Steven Barrett on Thursday, Aug 9, 2012 10:17 PM (EST):

Mark, when we look at our history, there are darn few times when our 44 leading gents haven’t left us more than a little played. Hmmm, how ‘bout flay’d and our wallets flambayed! At least Barack hasn’t tried to lecture down anybody at state fair of all places with the condescending tripe about “corporations are people, too my friend.” (Though I can’t help wondering how much Eric Holder and Tim Geithner don’t wonder if Mittens wasn’t all that off base. Now the question remains, LOL, which prospect is spookier! and most likely?!)
What we need are more dancin’ with the perps shots of the kind of reality tv so many of us who lost real money on Wall Street not thanks to the shysters who do the real dirty dancin’ on Wall Street.
The fun’s really begun to start. Poor Mittens, just as he’s losing any chance of gaining more women’s votes, he loses the confidence of the remaining OTHER half of the usual key voting bloc: us guys. What self respecting man would come out of a hardware store in New Hampshire of all states and gamely reply to a question as to what he bought ... as “hardward stuff.” He’ll never the get the Tim Allen fans now for sure. Gonzo. No self-respecting community organizer-turned-constitutional law prof-turned very successful politician would stoop to give “hardware stuff” as an answer.
As for corporate tools, I wish Obama and Holder will now start resorting to using the other kinds of tools, SEARCH WARRANTS, DEPOSITIONS AND BEST OF ALL, INDICTMENTS AND ARREST WARRANTS. Enjoy the rest of the night ... who know what flopperoos there’ll be awaiting us for tomorrow’s round of yuks?

Posted by Mark P Shea on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2012 5:50 PM (EST):

Steven:

All true, bearing in mind that Obama is every inch the corporate tool that Romney is, that he claims the right to indefinitely detain and murder anybody on planet earth he secretly and unaccountably declares to be an enemy of the state, that he is a zealot for the murder of babies in the womb, and that he has no qualms whatever about persecuting the Church. If you run from Romney into Obama’s arms you are, I submit, making exactly the same blunder as those who run from Obama into Romney’s arms. These men the Janus face of the Ruling Class. Don’t get played.

Posted by Steven Barrett on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2012 5:43 PM (EST):

By not voting for Romney, Mark, myself or anybody who chooses not to vote for the vulture capitalist, won’t have to wash any blood off their hands after voting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Salvatore, this guy has no inner core, and while he talks the line prolifers want to hear, it’s only because he feels its necessary to get his bum end in the Oval Office. Otherwise, he wouldn’t give a damn, just as he didn’t prior to his decision to get out of Massachusetts’ Beacon Hill statehouse. And as you read through the article I listed above, you’ll really see what I mean. Everything about this guy is a moral jumble, never mind a mental morass. Just as he walked out of that tool store in NH a few days ago and said he was carrying “hardware stuff” (what a girlyman answer) ... Mittens walked out of Beacon Hill and has ever since given the nation the equal to his description of nails, hammers, slide rules, brushes, screwdrivers, etc., as “hardware stuff,” only he migth as well have considered life and death issues like abortion, war and peace, health care insurance ... as “political stuff,” best suited for discussing in private rooms.”
The most moral vote one could make this year is for the single candidate who shares most of your views and has the most likely chance of beating the political stuff out of the lamest candidate the GOP has ever put before the public since Thomas E. Dewey.

Posted by Salvatore on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2012 4:51 PM (EST):

And third party libertarians are usually so anti government-intervention that they end up supporting “reproductive freedom” and “gay marriage,” so, where do you go?

Posted by Salvatore on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2012 4:46 PM (EST):

Mark, Forgive me if you answered this somewhere else, but I don’t see it in this article, but, what “grave evil” are you avoiding by not voting for Mitt Romney? Sure he’s kind of big government and not the most conservative candidate, but I’m not aware of any policies that he adheres to that support an “intrinsic” or “grave” evil.

Posted by Steven Barrett on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2012 12:58 PM (EST):

What are Catholics who want to be both loyal to their Church and country to do? Sit at home and pray the next guy won’t be as bad as the one we have? Work, vote and pray for whom we the “lesser of two evils” based on a balanced “look over” of each candidate’s good and bad points? What simply amazes me as each passing election rolls by, especially since Roe was passed down in ‘73, is that the people who’ve seem perfectly comfortable in playing the (rightful, of course!) determinators of who’s really “loyal” to Rome and/or more loyal to the latest wannabe caesar most likely to win the election.
It makes no difference to these self-designated 21st century reincarnations of Torquemada or the Vatican Inquistion, they’re going to find out who’s naughty or nice, take names and hand ‘em to the local parish pastor. And if “he’s not up to the job” of telling the more liberal (gasp!) prochoicers in their respective parishes, privately ahead of time by a letter, visit or phone call; they’ll take it upon themselves to rat on them all to their local bishop. And if he’s not into playing by their ultramontane rules of the Loyalist road that leads back to only one place ... well, heck, even Rome’s just an email away these days, right?
Our Catholic forebearers have two centuries sacrificed thousands of their lives and shed their blood in untold gallons for the right to live as free men and women in a free republic. That this has to be brought up again to some of our more stubbornly Vatican Uber Alles advocates, time after time, says more about their invincible ignorance of what it means to be both Catholics and Americans at the same time.
Indeed, we’re not “American Catholics,” as too many liberals instinctively and somewhat lazily describe ourselves,but Catholics who also happen to be Americans. With abortion in mind ... the ever-present loyalty-testing issue of our time, we can, and SHOULD still be freely able to advocate on behalf of, and vote for the candidates we deem as the most likely to save more unborn children from abortions without having to worry about the ever-present lay versions of Joe McCarthy, Torquemada’s spies and all of the spy apparatuses set up within our various intelligence agencies used to rat their fellow parishioners out because they found an Obama, or other pro-choice candidate’s sign on the person’s yard.
What a coincidence that you seldom hear these busybodies decrying Catholics like Ray Flynn, President Clinton’s first Ambassador to the Holy See, and long time Mayor of Boston/Ma state legislator prior to that ... even though he’s throwing his support to Scott Brown ... no friend of the unborn (if we’re going to judge a man solely by his legislative record.) I’m disappointed in Flynn’s backing of Brown; but I respect his right to do so. Indeed, that was the thrust of his campaign commercial on Brown’s behalf. Flynn didn’t take a shot at Elizabeth Warren, and he’s supporting Brown, the latter’s legislative stands on abortion notwithstanding, because he obviously believes, without even having to say so, the incumbent will do more to save unborn lives than the challenger. What Flynn’s doing is no different than what many Catholics who happen to be Democrats have done for years.
I used to be in the ranks of the more ultramontanes on this divide until I saw what it was leading to; more of the same ugly and diabolically-motivated [us vs. them] agit-prop nonsense that’s been superbly orchestrated by a well-placed and enormously well-funded un-democratic cabal who have used the unborn as a handy “bloody shirt” for decades to raise awareness for other convenient bogeyman rightist “causes” (that are also very cleverly smoothed over lest a more well-informed public catch on.)
I remember clearly the grief I and other supporters of unions caught in the Register when we defended labor’s rights in Wisconsin. (Well, we had good company with Milwaukee’s more open-minded and sensibly compassionate archbishop.) All because some public unions in WI had supported certain activities and stands in the gay rights agenda, etc., and of course, support for abortion, no loyal Catholic should have anything to do with them. We were supposed to pull back on our support because of those reasons, even though I’ll bet most union members probably didn’t know, or even care at that point when they were staring at the strong likelihoods of losing their incomes, savings, homes and self respect. (We’re still very 18th century-like when it comes to mentally and morally equating property ownership with self respect and respect for everyone else. Some “progress,” eh?) What should Catholics and all other citizens regardless of faith, party memberships, union status, etc. do? Ignore the well orchestrated threat to these people resulting from a campaign to strip a way already existing rights to collective bargaining ... to use that ol’ Nixonian saying, “let ‘em twist in the wind,” or say “to hell with the professional wedgers employed by the likes of the Brothers Koch, the GOP, Tea Party et al?
Get it: in order to be truly Catholic in the eyes of our more contemporary true blue loyalists to Rome, and Rome only ... never mind our entire Social Teaching tradition and even the Gospel itself…those who dared not to fall on swords others we’re only too glad to find willing victims (saps in this instance)to fall on for themselves because they weren’t willing to take these bold steps, or that in doing so, they wouldn’t be facing economic ruin.
BTW, those labor protestors, they weren’t just fighting for the unions, but for all workers and their right not to be emotionally and fiscally abused by the ilk David and Charles Koch sought to have running every state house across the land. Oh, but if they’re more publicly anti-abortion, we’re supposed to genuflect and give them a pass? We’ve been giving the right wing, which took over what should’ve been a non-ideological campaign to save the unborn, for 39 years; not to mention untold millions voluntarily given by so many trusting parishioners across the country thinking whatever organization they were donating to had the best interests of the unborn (and themselves, too) in mind.
How much “say” did liberal pro-lifers have when it came to the political muscle given by the so-called Susan B. Anthony Fund to their list of favored candidates…especially after Bart Stupak (D-MI) came to his senses? (Shamefully embarrassed to admit, sooner that I.) I don’t think I’ve seen one Democrat backed by this organization; not that any would want their backing. Considering the fact the famed activist hardly said anything longer than a vaguely worded sentence against abortion, this outfit has mis-used her reputation for their own shameless political game of “let’s out-do Emily’s List, any glaring lack of intellectual honesty or practical political consistency be damned and take the hindmost.”
Pray tell us, aside from Mike Pence’s grandstanding “let’s go after Planned Parenthoodwhile we’re at it” amendment ... where was any consistent thread of prolife logic shown the very night it was tucked into the first TeaParty’d/GOP rash of budgetary gouging of almost every well-baby/post-natal, pre-natal, you name it natal, WIC, and even fuel assistance and weatherization funding programs and meals-on-wheels programs keeping our poorer folks, especially our elderly, from starving and freezing to death. Think I’m exaggerating? Go look at Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ archives, especially those dated around February/March 2011.
Now they want ALL Catholics to prove their loyalist mettle by joining in with the bishops latest “let’s all pretend we’re Thomas More” campaign. Where were they when we needed another kind of patriotism demonstrated on behalf of all the American workers whose jobs and health benefits were pulled out from under them and shipped overseas, Mexico or Canada? Now we’re faced with yet another McCarthyesque set up…one brought on by ourselves who’d rather be entertained by a circular firing squad than doing anything to really prevent more abortions from occuring by taking the more practical stands of fighting to keep necessary social safety net programs alive; instead of playing God via budgetary off-setting gamesmanship that look great for their handlers to package themselves off as stalwart Christian fiscal conservatives. You won’t find this bunch joining in with the firing squads they’re seeking more of; oh no. Nor will you find them taking any share of responsibility for the blood on their hands due to the untold number of kids whose lives they could’ve saved, nor even our elderly. But you will find these Torquemada wannabes and actual Inspector Javerts, all gung-ho for driving those they deem unworthy of future membership in the Church universal out of the Church.
All they’re worthy of receiving from me is a line spoken by a Catholic who had his share of this nonsense and voiced it to another Catholic (albeit more secularly-oriented at the time)bully: “Have you no decency?”

Posted by Mark P Shea on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2012 10:48 AM (EST):

Bonchamps:

I would say you are obliged to vote, if you can, but not obliged to vote for candidates who endorse grave intrinsic evil.

Posted by Bonchamps on Tuesday, Aug 7, 2012 4:05 PM (EST):

Let me ask you this, Mark Shea: are Catholics obliged to vote, or may they abstain?

I’ve heard it argued that Catholic citizens who are able to vote, must do so.

Posted by Christian on Monday, Aug 6, 2012 7:53 PM (EST):

“That’s not to say voting is meaningless.”

Well then it’s not the stone in stone soup.

Posted by Christian on Saturday, Jun 9, 2012 10:45 PM (EST):

“Quite simply, following Cdl. Ratzinger’s guidance, I believe that unless somebody tells me “I voted for candidate X because I hope the grave and intrinsic evils he advocates remain the law of the land!” I have no way of knowing why they vote for him or what proportional reasons they have in mind…”

This is something like a reverse straw man, and very disingenious. You will never find a Catholic Obama voter who would ever say anything like this, and you know it, Mark. The typical Catholic Obama voter doesn’t think contraception is really bad, and therefore cannot bring himself to condemn abortion in any meaningful way (certainly not roe v wade). Abortion and contraception are linked, and everyone knows it. It is the implication of this link that is viewed from completely different angles by “righties” and “lefties”.

Honestly Mark, the kind of Catholic that votes for Obama is the kind of Catholic that doesn’t really know his faith, and doesn’t know Christ the way the Church knows him. In many cases, such a person thinks in very human (usually political) ways, and is not putting on the mind of Christ when he votes. As a consequence, that person does not see the evil he is promoting with his vote. Does such ignorance and blindness make the evil any less evil? I don’t think it does.

The problem with your entire argument, Mark, and perhaps also with what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote (though I have only read what you have presented here, out of context), is that it all really boils down to OPINION whether it’s OK to vote for Obama or not. “To each his own”... “different strokes for different folks”. I know that you would claim that this is “not what you wrote”, but it might as well have been. Surprisingly, I don’t think that you (someone whose wisdom and intelligence I respect tremendously) have really thought through your argument and its implications for moral relativism.

Posted by Joseph Drake on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 9:47 PM (EST):

One thing a Catholic can do in voting for a candidate for proportiante reasons, one thing I have done, is on the first opportunity to write the candidate chastising them for some morally evil policy or encouraging them to vote in accord with Catholic teaching, tell them that you did vote for them , why and that they have supporters or potential supporters who disagree with there current position on X. I believe that I have a greater obligation to write to a politician I voted for to chastise them, than I do to one I didn’t vote for.

Posted by anonymous on Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012 2:56 PM (EST):

GREAT article! Thank you for your passion. God bless.

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 2:39 PM (EST):

Brian:
Let me add that although, with due respect, I believe that your thinking is badly warped, I do appreciate your trying to explain it to me.

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 2:33 PM (EST):

Brian Killian:
“Many studies show a correlation between poverty and abortion” very clearly does not imply that “(1) Economic factors have a far more dramatic relationship with abortion than anything a president can do—for or against abortion” - so your making this claim and then turning to a ‘larger point’ (a.k.a. red herring) is not a good way to defend your argument.

Your defense of the relevance of #2 rests on a false dichotomy between ‘witness’ and ‘purely legal/political strategy.’

The relevance of #3 depends on buying into the false dichotomy you pose in #2. If we don’t do that, as we shouldn’t, then we can see that #3 is also irrelevant.

And your new claim, #4 - “not only is economic stability a way to decrease abortions, but it simultaneously creates a stable climate in which to work on changing our mores through faith and witness so as to change eventually the law itself” - implies again, entirely groundlessly, it seems to me, that people are best brought to repentance and conversion by having their material needs assured. How counter-gospel can you get? What would St. Francis say? What would Jesus say? I can’t imagine how a Christian could think that that kind of attitude - moral progress depends on material progress - was in any way compatible with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Pardon my incredulity, but you *seriously* somehow think that putting the daily state-authorized killing of thousands of innocent souls on the back-burner is supposed to somehow be recognizable as *the best* way to change the cultural and spiritual roots of decadent western culture so as to address life issues…?? That is unimaginable to me.

Posted by Brian Killian on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 1:54 PM (EST):

@DavidM

#1 is certainly not obviously false. Many studies show a correlation between poverty and abortion. The larger point is that whether or not a president is pro-choice may be irrelevant to actually addressing the cultural causes of abortion.

#2 is not irrelevant. If what is law flows from what we value and what we believe, then the most important strategy for changing our laws, is changing our values and changing what we believe. This means a strategy of witness may be more reasonable than purely legal/political strategy at this point in time.

#3 is not irrelevant. It addresses the cultural and spiritual roots of abortion and hence shows what kind of strategy is needed.

And both #2 and #3 are also related to #1 because not only is economic stability a way to decrease abortions, but it simultaneously creates a stable climate in which to work on changing our mores through faith and witness so as to change eventually the law itself.

So it is not unimaginable how a Catholic might conclude that the best way to serve the value of life is to vote for a politician that happens to be pro-abortion. A pro-abortion candidate might have the best policies for addressing life issues, and likewise a pro-life candidate might support policies that are actually counter-productive for the cause of human life.

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 10:14 AM (EST):

@Brian Killian: you call these reasonable assumptions:
1. Economic factors have a far more dramatic relationship with abortion than anything a president can do—for or against abortion.
2. The mores of a culture tend to be reflected in law in democratic societies.
3. The most profound roots of abortion are the decline of Christian faith and witness, and a cultural/political philosophy of individualism.
4. Therefore, the best pro-life strategy at the moment is to create economic stability to reduce abortion rate and to make possible Christian witness so as to change social mores as much as possible and eventually have that reflected in law. (From #1, #2, and #3).

These are anything but ‘reasonable assumptions,’ surely? #1 seems like a silly lie (its certainly obviously *false*). #2 is a no-brainer but completely irrelevant. #3 may be true but is again irrelevant. So, as far as I can see, your conclusion rests on patent falsehood #1 and irrelevancy #2 and #3, and in any case, doesn’t tell us what to do (Obama = economic stability??). The only social more you’re promoting here is the notion of materialistic economic determinism, i.e., morality is the result of affluence. Dreadful reasoning.

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 10:01 AM (EST):

Matt B: Good point. Mass media may be a problem (and control of the media by those who have lots of money), but the mass media, such as it is, grows out of the mass education system (controlled by whom??). The problem obviously can’t be solved by just sending more people to college (where they’ll learn what??).

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 9:52 AM (EST):

Two very bad arguments:
1. If a lot of people died fighting in wars, then we darn well ought to get out and vote (nope, that doesn’t follow).
2. If a lot of people died fighting in wars and I want people to vote, I should pretend that a primary objective for which the people who died fighting in wars fought was so that I could vote and that I should therefore feel compelled to vote (nope, that seems dishonest and again doesn’t follow).

Posted by Matt B on Wednesday, Dec 14, 2011 6:16 PM (EST):

Steven, higher education is oversold to the people of this country, as is your entire catalogue of “socially necessary emoluments.” You’re not talking about what people need, but what they have become accustomed mother bird will feed them. Very bread and circus-like. If you had any respect for the dignity of individuals, you might consider a world freed from media-guaranteed pablum, and interminable, rambling, effusive, content-free comments.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 14, 2011 3:16 PM (EST):

Steven:

Soooooo, you’re saying St. Paul (and the entire Catholic moral tradition) is wrong and that we have no king but Caesar? Or what? What’s your point? As near as I can tell you are offering full-throated apologia for “the ends justify the means”.

Posted by Steven on Wednesday, Dec 14, 2011 1:03 PM (EST):

When you live in a free republic, you’re not going to find the perfect candidate to vote for every single time an election’s held. So what do you do? Mock the sacrifices made by all those who died for the nation? Mock the sacrifices for all who served her in differing capacities, sometimes suffering great personal losses and disabilities as a result?
Do you think it’s asking too much to simply go down and put in a write-in sticker in place of the candidates or choices (printed up) on the ballot? If it is, then you DON’T deserve any grounds for crabbin’, whinin’ and moanin’ about the predicament you’re facing on election day. It sure beats having to jump out of a Higgins Boat, airplane or helicopter or fly or sail into harm’s way to defend the Greatest Nation on Earth for all time in recorded history.
How interesting that St. Paul’s quote “can one bring good from evil?” was used in the last previous post. Go back and read the history of the final climatic year of World War II. Yes, we laid waste to Europe and Germany in particular from our air raids and combat invasions. Look at what we defeated, what we ended and how many people we liberated. Look at the results of our two (albeit ghastly) atomic bombings on Japan. Ended the war rather quickly and saved a lot of our lives so we could continue remaining not only the strongest military force after WWII, but also the strongest economic power, and that power was just as vitally necessary to helping us win the post war peace as it was to win the combat against the Axis.
We’re not perfect and lots of evil occurs within our midst. Would anybody care to take a look at the alternatives out there and on the whole, compare against our favor? Good luck, you’ll need it.

Posted by Mark Wilson on Wednesday, Dec 14, 2011 9:58 AM (EST):

I posted a link to the article on someone’s FB page and this is the response i got…...

The article brings up the stance articulated by the USCCB involving ‘proportionate reasons’. The problem is…very few people in the Catholic world understand what ‘proportionate’ means making this more confusing. Proportion has to do with ...terms of justice as what a person owes to God. All proportion is measured according to the justice and perfection of God not man. When we say proportion we are inducing the standard of measurement. When we say measurement, we are meaning measured by the justice and just nature of God. When we say proportionate reasons, we mean a reason in terms of justice which outweighs some other reason.

And so yes, in theory there may be some material cooperation without any moral cooperation in a voting action when voting for somebody who supports intrinsic evil. There exists in theory some candidate who may advocate something worse than abortion or homosexuality.

Scenario one: One candidate supports Satanic worship and likes to pray to the Devil. He supports abortion and homosexuality. He wants to free everybody in prison as soon as elected.

Candidate 2 supports abortion and homosexuality but is a Methodist. They don’t want to release all the prisoners from prison.

If these are the only 2 cases, according to Ratzinger, one may in fact vote for candidate 2 without suggesting moral cooperation. That is because there is no other person and no other means. There is a proportionate combination of evil in terms of justice greater than abortion and homosexuality which is offensive to Divine justice.

Scenario two: One candidate supports abortion and homosexuality.
But he has a dynamite economic package to turn the country around. He is also against cutting down the rain forest and clean energy.

Candidate two is pro-life and pro-marriage. However, their economic
history is not too great. They could care less about the rain forest and they have a nepolean like complex.

Can I vote for candidate One? Ehhh Wrong. Sorry. The economy and enviroment are not greater evils than abortion and homosexuality.
Abortion and homosexuality are more offensive to the justice of God and weigh in proportion as greater evils. They draw down the wrath of God upon earth. So no. In this scenario there is not a proportionate reason to vote for Mr. Abortion candidate one.

In reality, they should just tell people to vote for the candidate who most closely aligns himself with the values of the Catholic Faith. It is St. Paul states, “Can one bring good from evil”? In other words, can any true lasting good come from someone who promotes values that lead millions of souls into hell.

Posted by Guest on Wednesday, Dec 14, 2011 9:54 AM (EST):

The article brings up the stance articulated by the USCCB involving ‘proportionate reasons’. The problem is…very few people in the Catholic world understand what ‘proportionate’ means making this more confusing. Proportion has to do with ...terms of justice as what a person owes to God. All proportion is measured according to the justice and perfection of God not man. When we say proportion we are inducing the standard of measurement. When we say measurement, we are meaning measured by the justice and just nature of God. When we say proportionate reasons, we mean a reason in terms of justice which outweighs some other reason.

And so yes, in theory there may be some material cooperation without any moral cooperation in a voting action when voting for somebody who supports intrinsic evil. There exists in theory some candidate who may advocate something worse than abortion or homosexuality.

Scenario one: One candidate supports Satanic worship and likes to pray to the Devil. He supports abortion and homosexuality. He wants to free everybody in prison as soon as elected.

Candidate 2 supports abortion and homosexuality but is a Methodist. They don’t want to release all the prisoners from prison.

If these are the only 2 cases, according to Ratzinger, one may in fact vote for candidate 2 without suggesting moral cooperation. That is because there is no other person and no other means. There is a proportionate combination of evil in terms of justice greater than abortion and homosexuality which is offensive to Divine justice.

Scenario two: One candidate supports abortion and homosexuality.
But he has a dynamite economic package to turn the country around. He is also against cutting down the rain forest and clean energy.

Candidate two is pro-life and pro-marriage. However, their economic
history is not too great. They could care less about the rain forest and they have a nepolean like complex.

Can I vote for candidate One? Ehhh Wrong. Sorry. The economy and enviroment are not greater evils than abortion and homosexuality.
Abortion and homosexuality are more offensive to the justice of God and weigh in proportion as greater evils. They draw down the wrath of God upon earth. So no. In this scenario there is not a proportionate reason to vote for Mr. Abortion candidate one.

In reality, they should just tell people to vote for the candidate who most closely aligns himself with the values of the Catholic Faith. It is St. Paul states, “Can one bring good from evil”? In other words, can any true lasting good come from someone who promotes values that lead millions of souls into hell.

Posted by Steven on Wednesday, Dec 14, 2011 9:43 AM (EST):

Think about the consequences of not voting. More than enough liberals and Democrats have learned the hard lessons of what happens when they don’t get out the vote: The Tea Party of the 112th House of Representatives.
Sadly, it’s not a joke when one considers the wreckage of self-governance, especially in light of the great debt ceiling debacle last Summer.
It’s not a joke when one considers the enormous cuts in badly needed social services and funding for the elderly, poor and disadvantaged people trying to afford a college education (today’s version of the minimum required h.s. diploma) without federal grants and loan guarantees. Want to create lasting businesses that’ll creat more lasting jobs? Tell the millionaire amateurs the GOP bagged to run as Tea Partiers to stop whining about laying more debt burdens on their kids, cutting off necessary college funding suppors (i.e., Pell Grants) while voting for tax breaks for their caste.
See what happens when people don’t vote. A lot of bad things can happen, real bad things.
I’ll tell you what else can happen when enough people don’t vote. Those who count on voter apathy can use their billions to finagle the political system to buy enough politicians via the guaranteed opaqueness of anonyminity protections granted to wealthy individuals and corporations through the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision. Oh, how could I forget, the Supreme Court allowed for this opaqueness when it declared like our “friend,” Mitt Romney, that “corporations are people, too,” and stacks of cash set aside for buying unlimited amounts of time and ink-space to trash people and causes they don’t care for, are just the same as “free speech.” That’s right, the amount of cash you have to use, in order to destroy another candidate or cause, and be able to cowardly hide behind the now deliberately protected SCOTUS’ allowances for privacy, depends only on the amount of booty you have available to demonstrate just how cynical one can be to dump into a SuperPac in the ultimate game of “drive by politics” as Rush Limbaugh would put it. He should know the drive-by boyos when he sees them. Too bad he only sees the liberal kinds, or so he’d like us to believe only liberals pull this crap.
When the big boys on Wall Street and K-Street (hmmm, K-for Karl, as in Rove? perhaps???, well, not quite, but close enough to drive the point across a certain crossroads from fair play into the back alley of brass-knuckled politics)—one of their major (albeit unstated) goals is to get the public so turned off by all the negative campaigning, that enough people will sit out whatever elections and primaries at hand. This, my liberal pals, will always come back and bite you big time in the rears and more classless GOP/TP acts like the Class of the 112th Congress will occupy more seats in the House, and may God forbid, take over the Senate.
Right now there’s a new Constitutional Amendment proposed, the Save American Democracy Amendment, co-sponsored by Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders and Alaska’s Senator Mark Begich, for the purposes of overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics. Just think of where this Amendment, with its timely given acronym SAD, will go if not enough of the right-minded people, and this kind of amendment rightly cuts across ideological, partisan and regional lines for the purpose of truly restoring government to the people if not enoughpeople dont’turn out to keep in office those who would continue fightint to make sure it was passed, sent to the states for ratification and eventually signed into law.
Folks, it’s this simple, the Koch Brothers, the GOP, Grover Norquist and the rest of the sychophants for all our oligarchs and their abasive and fawning agents who knowingly or unwittingly are subverting our form of governance and Republic, will win and our Republic will go the way of the former Roman Republic. It’ll keep all the trappings, all the symbolic symbols and yes, there’ll be a legislature of sorts, just like there remained the Curia (Senate)after Augustus got away with gradually subverting the Republic into an empire. But just remember this,
From the moment the final “emperor” ironically named Romulus, handed over the remainder of the Roman governing apparatus to the barbarians, there was never a fully representative government until 1789.
Geesh, I hope enough readers are familiar with the government I’m referring to.
This is what happens when the oligarchs can intimidate just enough people to behave as they wish simply by the number of advertising hours, (or the “barrels of ink” they can buy, as Tip O’Neill sarcastically put it,) and allowing for Edmund Burke’s famous saying about the cost we’ll pay if not enough of good, i.e., conscientiously dedicated and patiotically-minded citizens, don’t get over their pity parties about the fact their choices of candidates aren’t the greatest, purest or (whatever-est) they can hold against them as a cheap excuse for not voting ... AND CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE OF WHAT’LL REALLY HAPPEN IF THEY DON’T VOTE.
The bums will remain, and if you think things are screwed up now, imagine more of the 112th Congress calling the shots.
Yes, Mark’s right. There is a MORAL imperative to voting. Even if you don’t like my already stated reasons for why people should vote, and that’s okay; consider taking this little test of your conscience.
Open any history book to where it includes photo spreads of Arlington Memorial or any other specifically designated military burial grounds. I’ve been to Arlington, and several American cemeteries overseas, or even just walk through your own local burial grounds and count the flags and medialions indicating what war(s) they participated in or gave their all to preserve this Nation and protect its Constitution.
Hell, if that can’t motivate you ...

Posted by Mark Shea on Friday, Dec 9, 2011 10:47 AM (EST):

I nonetheless look forward to your analysis of why one should not vote for Republicans based upon this bill

You really seem bent on twisting my words. Why is that? I have never said, “Don’t vote for Republicans”. I have said, “Don’t vote for candidates who advocate grave intrinsic evil.” But the mere fact that somebody advocates something that is not intrinsically evil does not mean “vote for them.” As to the bill, it received bipartisan support. My own view is that the people who supported it should be turned out of office ASAP, preferably by impeachment, defenestration, or both. In a better world than ours, they would also be tried for treason and jailed. But that’s just me.

You are very welcome (about providing the link.)
And, I will honor your request on torture.
Although, you seem to have violated your own standard, by commenting on it, in the first place.

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 8:49 PM (EST):

Yes. Absolute despotism. I will be discussing the radical nature of SB 1867 tomorrow.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 8:47 PM (EST):

“Our elites on both sides of the aisle want to subject you to absolute despotism.”

Really? Seriously? “Absolute despotism”? If this is your view of American democracy, please, don’t vote!

Posted by Doug on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 7:10 PM (EST):

Our Lord would have made a good leader IMO, but he turned down the job. (John 6:15) Precedent? If so, should a mere human worry about voting for another mere human? The likely result was foretold:
Jer 10:23, newadvent Bible:
“I know, O Lord, that the way of a man is not his: neither is it in a man to walk, and to direct his steps.”
If I can’t ‘direct my own steps’ am I really qualified to direct a candidate’s, much less a nation’s?

Posted by James on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 5:39 PM (EST):

“Not intrinsically evil” does not equal “good”.

“Particularly when it hands over all your civil liberties to an omnipotent President to dispose of as he wills.”

Though I suspect if the later is true as you seem to claim then this would be an intrinsic evil.

I appreciate you acknowledging that the bill as it stands now is not intrinsically evil. (Unless of course the latter assertion cited is true.) So to equate it with promoting gay marriage, etc. would be flawed.

I nonetheless look forward to your analysis of why one should not vote for Republicans based upon this bill (intrinsically evil or not - we will see based upon the upcoming post.) Particularly given the consistent support for abortion as well as the attacks on the family and the Church by the Obama administration. (Note, not just abortion - which is why I argue that there are proportionate reasons to vote Republican.)

Posted by Matt B on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 4:43 PM (EST):

In a fundamental sense, not being able to vote in a democracy is tantamount to not being able to eat: it signifies a sickness in the body politic. Or for those of you who live in MA, it’s like not being able to have state-sanctioned carnal relations with a member of the same sex. Next thing, you’re dead.

That assumes there’s someone to vote for. If this is not the case, that’s even more evidence of an incipient terminal condition. The next thing that happens is that the ruling party suspends elections altogether, and represses any voice of opposition.

What happens when the “best and brightest” whine about all this to the point of desuetude is a good testimony to past history, put in a new and startling slant: Hitler, when he invaded Poland summarily murdered all the Polish officers and professors. When Lenin came to power, he murdered the “bourgeois intellectuals” - those who had merit and education. This strategy was duplicated by Pol Pot.

When the communists of our day sought to take over America in a slow, quiet revolution, they enslaved our intelligentsia with condoms and ice cream. We’ve been decapitated by self-indulgence and self-abuse. I hope you’re enjoying your soft-serve cell.

Posted by Yan on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 4:37 PM (EST):

Mark, I think you missed my point. If everyone does as you do, your action not only alters you [I admit your contention purely for the sake of argument, since not doing something also arguably alters you], but also the final result, in terms of who is elected, is altered as well. And that is something you have to consider, on a moral level, when you make the decision not to vote. You have to consider not only the result of your vote, but the result of your not voting.

It’s possible that your single non-vote will have no effect on an outcome. However, sometimes [and not so rarely] a single non-vote DOES affect an outcome. Furthermore, as a person whose actions and positions in the public square affects the actions and positions of other people, your publicized decision to not vote influences others to do likewise. So your decision in your case disproportionately affects the outcome of elections.

You keep saying that you see no disproportionate reason for voting for a non-Obama candidate, and that therefore you are free not to vote. I think that is the wrong way to look at things. The starting point for responsible Catholic voters should be that they do their utmost to exercise their duty as best they can to vote. Then, unless they can find no way, in exercising their best prudential judgment, to use that vote for good, then they are still duty-bound to vote in order that the good that they reasonably believe can be effected by their vote has a chance to come to pass.

To put it legally: A. the presumption is that you have to vote, unless you can find no way to do good by voting.

Your rendering: B. the presumption is that you don’t have to vote if you cannot find a proportionate reason for doing so.

I think statement A. is more in accord with the Catholic duty to exercise civic responsibility. Statement B is not reconcilable with the concept of having a positive duty, which we indeed have. I don’t think Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter was meant to overturn the presumption of civic duty as applied to voting.

WWPD? [What would the Pope do?]

You are not an ignorant man and so you know that the President appoints Supreme Court justices and other judges. You know that practically speaking there is no way Obama or any other Democrat is going to appoint justices that will roll back the right of abortion in any context. You know that the right of abortion and homosexual marriage can be rolled back or inhibited judicially, and that the right of abortion even potentially could be overturned judicially. You know that the only other way to roll back such a right would be through a constitutional amendment. You know there is only one party that would potentially propose and ratify such an amendment were it to be in power in sufficient numbers. [It is a matter of record that only one party has ever proposed such amendments.] It seems to me very difficult to argue that the duty to vote can be avoided under these circumstances, as your vote will have the chance to create a positive good.

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 4:11 PM (EST):

“The act of voting is the stone in the stone soup of political responsibility for Catholic citizens of democratic countries.” I too think this is basically true.
“In the same way, the great overlooked issue in elections is that the way we vote (particularly in vast national elections) has infinitely more impact on ourselves than it does on the fate of the nation.” - But I’m pretty sure that that is plainly wrong, provided “the way we vote” is meant to imply “who we vote for.” The mere act of voting, in itself, is the stone in the stone soup as regards *impact on ourselves* just as much as regards *the fate of the nation*.
“My vote will not affect the outcome of the election.” - Yeah, probably not - but so what?? Let’s not be cynical and utilitarian.
“But it will affect me and change me either into somebody who does or does not say yes to grave and intrinsic evil.” - Yes - but the thing to remember is that if you do choose to vote, 1) that in itself is *part* of saying ‘yes’ to God, and 2) (N.B.) whether or not you are saying yes to grave and intrinsic evil depends on whether you have *morally good* *reasons* for casting the vote you did - it does not depend on whether or not you voted for a candidate who endorses grave and intrinsic evil. Therefore the point about “make that choice enough” (what choice?!) appears to be a non sequitur conclusion in the context of the article.—Of course I won’t *condemn* anyone who doesn’t have the savvy to understand that but I will *judge* them. IMO the article has a touch of thou-shalt-not-judgism to it. The point of the Ratzinger quote is about how to *judge* in good conscience (when voting), not about how to *not judge* (other voters).

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 4:05 PM (EST):

I look forward to your analysis of this and your understanding of how this bill is intrinsically evil as well as how it will necessarily lead to what you point to.

Don’t twist my words. Torture (which the GOP supports in huge percentages) is intrinsically immoral. The bill that passed (though a GOP senator *attempted* to include a provision allowing the torture of American citizens) failed to include that amendment (thanks to Rand Paul). The bill is not, so far as I can tell, intrinsically evil. It is, however, fantastically dangerous and draconian. “Not intrinsically evil” does not equal “good”. Particularly when it hands over all your civil liberties to an omnipotent President to dispose of as he wills. Try to get beyond the mindset “opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world”. Our elites on both sides of the aisle want to subject you to absolute despotism.

Posted by Mark on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 1:59 PM (EST):

@ Brian Killian,
Those economic factors certainly do have a dramatic effect on abortion. So do the levels of education that Matt B mentions later. If we remember that the push for the societal acceptance and ultimate legalization of abortion, sterilization, euthanasia… all come the highly educated, economically well-off, and far more ‘enlightened’ class, and not from the poor, you’re right. All these evils started from the top down, not the bottom up. And the poor and lowly-educated have been coerced to believe that they haven’t the brains nor the money to think for themselves. So being poor means you get to have your abortions and blame it on your economic condition. And the eugenicists of the world, from Sanger to PP, smile all the way to the bank. This is economic reductionism straight out of Marx.
Also, examine just how many abortions occur within the hallowed confines of the university where the entire concept is accepted without question. Seems to me, the richer you are and/or the more education you have are in direct proportion to one’s unquestioning acceptance of evil. Consider the following:
“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”—GKC
Only a return to the common sense of the average person who values the society-saving, normal things such as faith, family, and life, will work to combat evil. That means not trusting the rich and not accepting the sterile values of the academic aristocracy.

Posted by Joe from Idaho on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 1:27 PM (EST):

Bravo my good man! I always admire and enjoy your articles but this has to be my favorite. I am so sick of this sport known as “American politics” where the teams are the “Blues” and the “Reds” and the uniforms consist of parenthetical “R"s and “D"s. You admonish us all that our choices matter, and most importantly they matter to God. I cannot comend you enough, but if ever are ways cross paths I hope you allow me to treat you to pint of your favorite ale.

Posted by James on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 12:18 PM (EST):

“I will have a blog up about this tomorrow.”

I look forward to your analysis of this and your understanding of how this bill is intrinsically evil as well as how it will necessarily lead to what you point to.

If it is both then I could see you equating it with nuclear war and the elimination of marriage. The former of which does not seem to be advocated by Repbulicans and the latter of which is clearly advocated by Obama and the Democrats.

Posted by Matt B on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 11:38 AM (EST):

I’m really shocked that reasonable people need recourse to Thomistic philosophy in order to perform so mundane a civic obligation as casting a vote. What’s next? Hamlet’s “Soliloquy at a Stop Sign,” “Wittgenstein Fills out an Insurance Form at His Doctor’s Office,” “The Relativity of Federal Form 1040.”

To me this represents, not an advancement in the general education of the populace, but rather a devolution of politics into futility and frustration. Like with idiotic shibboleths such as “medicare fraud,” “immigration reform,” “national debt reduction,” and “election reform,” there are no answers - and there is no exit. Just “blah, blah, blah” wherever you turn.

Don’t expect any help from Obama (although he’s closely aligned with Satan himself, and should be able to pull some strings on the economy). Don’t expect any relief from Romney or Newt, or anyone else on that side of the aisle. There’s no help coming, only more and more Indians riding wave after wave over the crest of the hill.

Any adult with less than 4 children, blame yourselves. Any person with more than 3 years of post-secondary education, blame yourselves. Anyone who works in “the Arts,” blame yourself. You’ve been caught sleeping when your Master came knocking.

Posted by Brian Killian on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 11:31 AM (EST):

It’s not that difficult to come up with proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-choice politician. All it takes are a couple of reasonable assumptions. Take these as an example:

1. Economic factors have a far more dramatic relationship with abortion than anything a president can do—for or against abortion.

2. The mores of a culture tend to be reflected in law in democratic societies.

3. The most profound roots of abortion are the decline of Christian faith and witness, and a cultural/political philosophy of individualism.

4. Therefore, the best pro-life strategy at the moment is to create economic stability to reduce abortion rate and to make possible Christian witness so as to change social mores as much as possible and eventually have that reflected in law. (From #1, #2, and #3).

Now you can quibble with the premises, but they are not insane or outlandish premises. They are not obviously false or unreasonable. Some or all of them may even be true. For a Catholic thinking along these lines, the goods are indeed proportionate for voting for a pro-choice candidate.

It’s not your typical conservative pro-life strategy, but it is a strategy nonetheless. So even if, for example, many Catholics voted for Obama in the last election for economic reasons, it doesn’t follow that they were not voting for pro-life reasons as well.

Posted by Jacob S on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 10:20 AM (EST):

In regards to “Proportional reasons for me, but not for thee”:
-
I agree with you that attempting to judge whether or not a vote for Obama (or whatever other candidate) is sinful is over stepping our bounds. I don’t necessarily think that you were trying to imply otherwise, but I want to point out that we can debate whether proportional reasons exist, and we can think that the other person’s conclusions are incorrect, and we can even think that they are so mind boggling obviously incorrect that to think them is somewhat stupid (though honesty has tell us that us thinking them stupid does not make them so).
-
We only contradict then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter when we presume to say that because we don’t think that proportionate reasons exist that the other person is sinning by honestly thinking that they do and voting that way. But we’re perfectly free to think that the other person’s reasoning is boneheaded and that they are wrong to vote the way they do (after all, at least one of us is wrong and we’re not likely to think that a view we hold is wrong) - just not that they are sinning to vote the way they do.

Posted by Jennifer on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 10:20 AM (EST):

“Ruling Elites on both sides of the aisle vs. the Populace”...translated…Those who choose wealth and power vs. the dignity of humanity.

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 10:12 AM (EST):

Oh, and by the way, Obama’s terrifying reason for opposing this draconian legislation? It doesn’t give him *enough* tyrannical power. So yes, I think the issue is not Left vs. Right but our Ruling Elites on both sides of the aisle vs. the Populace.

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 10:10 AM (EST):

James:

You are entitled to your opinion. I see all the GOP candidates but two advocating the erection of a torture state and endorsing the idea of an Executive with the unilateral power of life and death over American citizens. I would very much like to know what those candidates think about SB 1867, which seeks to strip all American of their most fundamental right against an omnipotent Leviathan and leave them naked before an Executive who can, if it pleases him, declare them somehow suspected of being a terrorist or “supporting” terrorism and put them in prison without right of appeal—forever. This received overwhelming support in the Senate from Republicans. So yeah, the GOP is all about loving them draconian policies. And I suspect the Usual Suspect in the Presidential race are too. I will have a blog up about this tomorrow.

Posted by James on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 10:02 AM (EST):

“But you don’t *have* to vote for such a candidate—particularly if, as is the case with me, you see no proportionate reason for doing so and think that you are simply perpetuating a cycle of evil by doing so.”

Though I believe the outright attack on the family fully endorsed by President Obama and the Democratic party is in fact a proportionate reason. Particularly as I do not see any Republican candidate advocating nuclear war or any other draconian policies contrary to Catholic Social Teaching.

Posted by Jennifer on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 9:45 AM (EST):

Mark - I think the problem here that prevents these folks from understanding what you are saying is that they do not understand the whole concept of civility and charity in action toward neighbor (love your enemies). Your love of neighbor, no matter how sinful and deluded that other person may be, is beyond comprehension for them. I get it. I do. You’re speaking about something more than just compassion here. You’ve said repeatedly, we can’t vote for anyone, regardless of party, who does not respect the dignity of the human person, period. There really should be no reason to restate that. Abortion, euthanasia, war, torture…all contradict God and are an offense to unity. And while there are hierarchies amongst these items, the bottom line is that each and every one of them diminishes the dignity of the human person. And this left vs. right, Dem. vs. Rep. battle is a distraction which we use to justify hating the “other” and thereby diminishing their dignity. Hating someone by the way is considered murder in our heart…a sin…needs to be confessed! Both sides are playing this game (demonizing the other), and it doesn’t matter if one side has figured out how to employ greater hierarchal truths than the other, anything done to diminish the dignity of someone else is against God, His commandments, and humanity. Truth matters in so much as how we apply it to ourselves. It’s not meant to be something we bludgeon people over the head with, that would be an affront to their dignity. Your example of “the man who votes for evil, out of fear for his family” is still voting incorrectly and will have to account for that when he dies, but if we cannot learn to forgive him for it, how will we forgive ourselves for all the offenses we committed that are brought to our attention at the moment of our death? This is what really matters. (I thought it interesting someone once blogged that we judge ourselves, we choose heaven or hell. And that God in His mercy shields us from seeing every little infraction we commit now while we are still alive so as to keep us from despair so that we persevere forward.) But I’m doing my hardest to see my offenses now, and practice forgiveness (which is proper recognition of a wrong then letting it go), and working on respecting the dignity of others here while I still can. (Wise and prudent virgin who keeps her lamp lighted). I suggest this for the benefit of everyone else as well while we still have God’s mercy of time. Allow your consciences to be well formed my Holy Mother Church, then go vote a well formed conscience, not just against “someone” or “something” out of fear for loss of some earthly benefit. I know the loss can be really great, but it’s still nothing compared to loss of soul!

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 8:32 AM (EST):

Toad:

Of course it’s not the only one. Indeed, it’s a position I almost never hear articulated at all. That’s why I wrote about it. Padre Pio was, of course, bound to obey conscience. I also note that Padre Pio may well never have been in an electoral situation where every candidate on the ballot advocated policies directly repugnant to the teaching of Holy Church and pressing for the commission of grave intrinsic evil. I do live in such a situation. So if there is no candidate on the ballot who does not advocate grave intrinsic evil, I will vote for the next ballot item.

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 8:28 AM (EST):

Yan:

Once more with feeling: I am not talking about “purity”. I’m talking about absolute bare minimum moral decency. Refusing to support policies of grave intrinsic evil is not “purity”. Wishing to avoid the fires of hell is not “perfectionism”. And no, the catechism nowhere urges to vote for grave intrinsic evils. You may, per Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter, vote for a candidate who supports grave evils if you are convinced in your conscience that there is a proportionate reason to do so (in other words, not because you support the evil he wishes to do, but because you think that, by doing so, some greater evil will be prevented). But you don’t *have* to vote for such a candidate—particularly if, as is the case with me, you see no proportionate reason for doing so and think that you are simply perpetuating a cycle of evil by doing so. So yes, a refusal to cast a vote can be a moral act too since there can be a proportionate reason for doing so: namely, that my vote will not alter the election but it will alter me.

Posted by TOADEHALL on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 8:22 AM (EST):

A well reasoned moral position but not the only one. Amid great political corruption of different character Padre Pio insisted in voting in every election.

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 8:15 AM (EST):

Bryan:

Did you even read what I wrote? I don’t believe there is a proportionate reason to vote for Obama. please go back and read it again.

Posted by Bryan Turner on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 5:26 AM (EST):

Mark I assume we agree that President Obama is Pro-Abortion and that is an intrinsic evil. I would like for you to tell me what intrinsic evils the 2012 Republican candidates support and then please articulate the proportinate reason clause you cited of how we could then vote for Obama. I believe you have made the cardianl error of taking a quote out of the whole and hence out of context. I challenge all to read the full letter of Cardinal Ratzinger, Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II and the Faithful Citizenship letter by the American Bishops in 2008 and anything else you can find that the Magisterium has put out on these issues. Finally I assume that you have not talked to Pope Benedict about what he meant by proportinate reason so how can so boldly claim that you know. Peace be with you all and I hope we all take the time to form our consciences well God Bless.

Posted by Yan on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 3:28 AM (EST):

This is not that hard. You could even let Kant’s categorical imperative be your guide: if everyone thought about voting the way you do, then the worst candidates would always win elections. The pure of heart would never vote. Would the sacrifice of the widow in any possible scenario end with that result?

You can’t pretend that voting is just about your soul, Mr. Shea, though it undoubtedly is about that. You make a good point. But focusing on yourself in this situation is not the Catholic way. And getting involved in societal change at the grassroots, or whatever you believe to be the ‘real’ way society gets better [perhaps some presumption there on your part?] is not a reason to elide doing your part to make it better in a ‘macro’ way, so to speak, also.

I believe the catechism urges us to vote as part of our responsibility as citizens.

Posted by Sherry Weddell on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 1:50 AM (EST):

I’ve posted this a few time over the past 7 years but thought it might be useful. I wrote this up immediately upon returning home, two days after the conversations described before the memory faded.)

On Election eve, 2004, I was in Australia. While there, I took the opportunity to ask two world-class experts on Church’s teaching in this area (who are both known for their careful orthodoxy) and the intense political debate that it had engendered among Catholic voters in the US. One was Bishop Anthony Fisher, OP of Sydney (recently elevated by Cardinal Pell), who has a PhD in bioethics and is recognized as (in John Allen’s words) “one of the sharpest minds in English-speaking Catholicism”. The other was Dr. Tracey Rowland, Dean of the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, and one of most respected new theologians emerging today.

Voting as formal cooperation in intrinsic evil:

1. Both Fisher and Rowland emphasized that Church teaching is “very underdeveloped” in this area. Bishop Fisher had attended a symposium in Rome on Evangelicum Vitae 73 in February of 2004. EV 73 reads in part:

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. . .

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”(98)

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. . . In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Fisher said that at this symposium two top notch, orthodox theologians presented completely opposite views and neither could be considered “wrong” in light of current Church teaching (although Fisher privately agreed with one over the other). The bishop noted that only about 9 scholarly works exist on the subject and that he has read them all. In other words, there is, as yet, no authoritative interpretation of EV 73 to guide us.

2. Fisher stated that there was no theological basis for asserting categorically that a Catholic could not, in good faith, vote for either US candidate since both had serious problems from the perspective of Church teaching. Fisher said that if he were an American, he’d be voting for Bush – precisely because of the abortion issue, but that it would be a matter of personal judgment. Life issues had been his personal passion since he was at university and naturally they dominate his moral appraisal of the current scene. Fisher noted that other people with other expertise would naturally be pre-occupied with different areas of grave concern that would shape their prudential judgment.

3. Fisher then made a fascinating comment that I have not heard elsewhere – that there is no basis in Church teaching for comparing two very different “intrinsic evils” and determining that one is objectively and absolutely more grave than the other. One can compare levels of a similar intrinsic evil. You could say that 4,000 abortions is more grave than 40 or that a genocidal conflict that killed 10,000 was a more grave evil than one in which only 500 died. But you can’t, on the basis of current Catholic teaching, categorically determine that abortion, for instance, is always and absolutely more grave than a given unjust war or torture or severe economic injustice. By definition, something that is truly intrinsically evil can’t be relatively less evil anymore than a person can be only mostly dead (well, outside the alternate universe of the Princess Bride, anyway – although I did encounter some situations that came pretty close on the cancer unit).

So one cannot state, as definitive Church teaching, that the gravity of the evil of abortion must outweigh all other intrinsic evils or any possible combination of intrinsic evils in our political calculations. An individual could arrive at such a prudential judgment in a particular situation in good faith but an equally faithful Catholic could come to a quite different prudential conclusion in good conscience. (Sherry’s note: As Michael Sweeney pointed out so clearly this summer, the problem in the US was a failure to make it clear when the bishops were making prudential judgments rather than articulating Church teaching that obliged.)

1) When I said that it was my observation that quite a few serious Catholics in the US were under the impression that doctrine had developed in this area, Fisher responded that a few bishops making personal pronouncements simply isn’t the development of doctrine. When I asked Rowland why some US bishops had made such statements when they must know that Church teaching did not support it, she pointed out that many bishops are not familiar with the nuances of Church teaching in this area. Rowland (unlike Fisher, who thought that any talk of ex-communication in the midst of an election was imprudent) believed that Ratzinger (she said that she was a big fan of Ratzinger) had made a good case for refusing communion to a politician who publicly supports abortion but also agreed that there simply wasn’t any clear Church teaching about voting as a form of formal cooperation with evil.

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 1:12 AM (EST):

Lenny:

Why?

Jasper:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. I forgive you. I hope you repent and go to confession soon.

Posted by Blake Helgoth on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 10:55 PM (EST):

Maxime,
The simple fact that Ron Paul wants to defund that the Department of Education has me seriously considering voting for him. Add to that his staunchly pro-life voting record and stance, his refusal to be bought and I almost cannot see voting for another. However, if Newt has had a world view changing type conversion, then he may be worth a look as the graces one recieves from the Church, if one is practicing their faith, should enable them to be more virtuos than those who do not share in those graces.

Posted by Maxime on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 9:11 PM (EST):

Ron Paul is the only candidate in which I do not have to sacrifice any principles in order to vote for, thus he has my vote. Simply read his “Plan to Restore America” and find anything in it that contradicts Church teaching.

Posted by Mark on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 8:41 PM (EST):

Mr. Shea,

Check out George Weigel’s excellent piece, “The Evangelical Reform of Catholic Advocacy” in the latest issue of First Things. It addresses the Church’s proper role in the public square. Its role must start with those ‘first things’, those first principles, which have been lost not just in society at large but amongst the majority of American Catholics (at least 53%, I’d say!). Weigel says the only way out of our current political insanity is “to make Catholic efforts to bring moral first principles to bear on public life in an effective way.” Until Catholics truly understand and follow the underlying principles girding Catholic teaching, and then participate in the public square accordingly, the Church, like the nation, will be divided.
As I stated at 1:30, I agree that voting affects our personal soul. But Chesterton says a nation also has a soul: “A nation is a society with a soul; when a society [or a church?] has two souls, there is, and ought to be, civil war. For anything which has a dual personality is certainly mad and probably possessed by devils.”

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 7:38 PM (EST):

Del:

I’m not arguing the reasons are good. I’m saying I can see why somebody would embrace those reasons and think they were doing the best thing in a difficult situation. I cannot, for myself accept such reasons for precisely the reason you point out. But try to have enough empathy and imagination for people who are desperate, or who are poor reasoners, to realize that some people will feel, in their (poorly formed) conscience that they are doing the best thing in a bad situation. That’s why Cdl. Ratzinger says we cannot judge others when they think they are voting for a proportionate reason. You quarrel is with him, not me. Because it is he who says that it *is* possible for somebody to think that voting for a pro-abort candidate is justified, just so long as they are not voting because the support the grave evil the candidate supports, but for some other proportionate good they are trying to achieve. I’m just trying to imagine a circumstance in which somebody might feel that way, not saying I agree. It’s a thought experiment about remote material cooperation, not an argument for abortion.

Posted by Del on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 7:23 PM (EST):

Mark Shea writes in a reply:

Or I can imagine a lower income guy scrambling to feed his family who would never, himself, condone an abortion but who thinks that the pro-abort mayor’s track record of attracting work to his city outweighs the fact that he is pro-abortion, on the theory that a prolife mayor isn’t really going to change anything about the local culture of abortion, but his lousy economic record could well spell homelessness for his family. I can imagine somebody making a lesser of two evil choice in such a situation. Wouldn’t be my choice. But it’s not utterly inconceivable to say that somebody might, in conscience, feel obliged for the sake of his family to support the pro-abort guy. Voting, in short, is complex. That’s why Cdl. Ratzinger writes as he does.

Bull! Voting for a pro-abort because you need a job or need to feed your family or are worried about being homeless is never justified. Besides who is to say a pro-life candidate won’t assist with these things and a pro-abort candidate would? Those reading this I ask: Would you allow a baby to be killed so your family can eat?

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 7:00 PM (EST):

Andy:

I’ve been out running around this afternoon. It appears that what happened is New Advent ran a link to this article and a lot of people showed up as a result.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 6:58 PM (EST):

Jennifer:

You make sense to me.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 6:55 PM (EST):

By the way Nick, your argument that Ratzinger’s letter “completely refutes” me is badly constructed. Ratzinger simply doesn’t address the question of torture. He compares abortion and euthanasia with just war and capital punishment. The former two issues are intrinsically immoral. The latter two are not.

Torture is intrinsically immoral and so is just as forbidden as abortion and euthanasia.

But, again, this thread is not about torture. It’s about the act of voting. Please stay on topic. Thanks for your cooperation.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 6:47 PM (EST):

Nick, thanks for finding the link to the whole letter. I’m on the road and writing under some time pressure.

Somebody asks what a “proportionate” reason might be for voting for a pro-abort. I can’t think of one for myself. But I certainly can imagine somebody, for instance, being so afraid that candidate B is going to start a nuclear war that they vote for pro-abort candidate A to prevent that (more of that “voting against” thinking).

Or I can imagine a lower income guy scrambling to feed his family who would never, himself, condone an abortion but who thinks that the pro-abort mayor’s track record of attracting work to his city outweighs the fact that he is pro-abortion, on the theory that a prolife mayor isn’t really going to change anything about the local culture of abortion, but his lousy economic record could well spell homelessness for his family. I can imagine somebody making a lesser of two evil choice in such a situation. Wouldn’t be my choice. But it’s not utterly inconceivable to say that somebody might, in conscience, feel obliged for the sake of his family to support the pro-abort guy. Voting, in short, is complex. That’s why Cdl. Ratzinger writes as he does.

Posted by Blake Helgoth on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 6:37 PM (EST):

Formation of conscience (a judgement of reason about what is right and wrong) is what is needed. Those who care to do their homework will find that the two party paradigm is a sham. Both parties have been bought off by the globalist banks and corporations. I am even coming to see that the whole pro-life canidate thing is a sham. What “pro-life” candidate have you ever voted for in a national election that actually made a difference?
What Mark is saying is that voting is an act on conscience. Willful ignorance in this regard is serious matter (as in treading in the mortal sin waters) so your duty is to know what is really going on in the world and what the Church teaches about it before you vote. Listening to Fox News or other MSM for hours on end does not an informed conscience make. That being said, one can never judge how sincere another’s attempts to for their conscience have been.

Posted by Del on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 6:07 PM (EST):

Another thing, the next administration can very well tilt the balance of power in the Supreme Court. Another 4 years of Obama will assure the continuation of Roe v Wade. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a new justice will be appointed in the next 4 years.

Posted by Nick from Detroit on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 6:05 PM (EST):

Michelle,

Your attempt to make Messrs. Cain, Gingrich, and Perry worse than President Downgrade, fails spectacularly! O’Bama blocked a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have stopped the abomination of putting babies, who survive an abortion, into garbage cans, and left to die. Name one Republican candidate that did anything close to this?

The democrat party is the Party of Death, period. Republicans have their problems, i.e., RINOs, liberals, but, the GOP doesn’t have the right to unfettered abortion written into their party platform, like the democrats do.

Posted by Andy, Bad Person on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 5:24 PM (EST):

Judging by the sudden influx of commenters all following the same talking points, I’m guessing that Mark’s article got cross-posted some other blog of arch-conservatives. I can even guess what the commentary over there (wherever it is) is:

Mark Shea is a moral relativist! He says that you can vote for Obama in good conscience. What a neo-Cath!

Posted by Anthony S. Layne on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 5:14 PM (EST):

Although I tend toward the “hold your nose and pull the lever” theory myself, there is one thing that keeps me holding the “3rd-party candidate” option open: watching Dancing with the Stars, and noticing how many “front-runners” get booted off because the national audience voted for other people ... often in favor of some crowd-pleasing celebrity who otherwise had no hope. I’d be much more in favor of it if there were a 3rd-party or unaffiliated candidate pro-life Christians could agree to: Alveda King? Peter Kreeft? Chuck Colson? I’m afraid just about any name would kick the Catholic circular firing squad into action. ... Yoda of Borg?

Posted by Mark on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 4:50 PM (EST):

Apparently, someone could vote for anybody in good conscience and still be an upstanding Catholic. Apparently, it’s all relative, subjective, and up to one’s wonderful conscience, regardless of how well-formed that conscience is.

If my Obama-voting Catholic friend and I, a Catholic voting in opposition to Obama, walked up to the pope and gave our reasons for our votes, each made in good conscience, the pope would smile at us both, bless us both, and send us on our merry way. We are both good, pious, devout, compassionate and caring Catholics in the eyes of the Church. Is that it? I’m sure it’s not, but that seems to be what is being proposed here.
And let’s remember that it’s not just Obama or any single Democrat politician. Written within the Democratic Party platform is their support for abortion, and the party now stands for the redefinition of the family. If the Catholic Church is unclear on so many social issues, the Church is very clear on the obligation of Catholics to defend life and family. Voting against Church teachings is not just voting in opposition to the Faith, it is voting in opposition to God Who guides the Church on such issues. Put that in your conscience, and then try to justify a truly Catholic vote for any Democrat in today’s Democratic party.

Posted by Michelle on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 4:21 PM (EST):

@ Dennis: Cain had zero experience (even Obama in 2008 had more experience), and that’s not considering the revelations that came out; Perry was willing to execute Americans, regardless of whether or not judgments of guilt were correct; Gingrich is a slimy hypocrite and has now proven himself untrustworthy on pro-life issues. None of them have demonstrated anything that suggests they could change the status quo on abortion in this country, and we’ve seen zip from GOP-nominated justices on abortion issues. I’m not saying that I personally support Obama or want to vote for him. I’m merely stating why I think someone could do so in good conscience.

Posted by Dennis O'Donovan on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 4:09 PM (EST):

@Michelle: What is it about the candidates you mentioned that would justify voting for a candidate who, if elected, might have the power to appoint a justice or two to the Supreme Court who would solidify a pro-abortion majority on the court? What is so bad about those candidates that it would be better to continue with 1.2M abortions each year without any effort to stop it?
www.rpconradio.com

Posted by Michelle on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 3:55 PM (EST):

What could be a proportionate reason why a pro-life Catholic could vote for Obama in good conscience? Well, in 2008, I can’t imagine one. But in 2012, with the field of GOP candidates we’ve seen, I could imagine such a Catholic looking at the possibility of a Herman Cain, Rick Perry, or Newt Gingrich, and deciding it is better to tolerate four more years of Obama than to give any of those guys a shot at eight. In other words, it is just as valid to use the “hold your nose and pull the lever” for a liberal as it is for a conservative when the intent is to prevent someone worse from attaining power.

Posted by Dennis O'Donovan on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 3:48 PM (EST):

The bottom line question is: Can someone with a properly formed conscience, in this election year, all things considered, vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, pro homosexual agenda and attempting to infringe upon religious liberty? The is not an academic question. Human lives are at stake.
www.rpconradio.com

Posted by Nick from Detroit on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 3:41 PM (EST):

Mr. Shea,

Perhaps you should read all of, then, Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum, which was more about receiving Holy Communion, rather than voting. I notice you did not provide a link, as you are usually wont to do. Here is a link, for those interested:

This quote is most helpful:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. [...] There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

This completely refutes your many attempts at morally equating abortion and waterboarding (and other E.I.Ts.) Waterboarding is not intrinsically evil, as is abortion.

Also, I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger, in the nota bene which you quoted, is not talking about voting for someone like O’Bama or J.F. Kerry. I think he is referring to someone like President George W. Bush, who, while calling himself “Pro-Life,” had exceptions for rape and incest, and would not ban embryonic stem-cell research, among other things.
When the choice is between someone who wants unrestricted abortion and someone who wants restricted abortion, a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for the candidate who would allow abortions in some cases.
The Holy Father’s words cannot be used to justify voting for someone like O’Bama, unless O’Bama is running against someone like Barbara Boxer, who would probably like to mandate abortions, if she could.
God Bless!

Posted by mark on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 3:36 PM (EST):

Mark,

your brilliant blog is so enlightening, what would i do without your pontification? You remind me of the the supporters of Pontius Pilate, who is famous forhis blog, “What is Truth?”

mark

Posted by Gabriel Austin on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 3:07 PM (EST):

It seems to me that there is too much weight given to elections in the U.S., as though we are asked to decide on the coming of God’s Kingdom. The infestation of abortion in the U.S. will not soon be decided by elections, or reversals of Roe v. Wade. We are not the Chosen People. And the evil has bitten too deeply in individual souls.

The evil of abortions lies in the souls of the aborters. God will certainly take into His arms the babes killed by aborters, just as He does the babes killed in natural catastrophes, or those lost in stillbirths or premature births. The offense of abortion is an offense to God - a sin - which should be our chief concern. A reading of the Biblical passages about Sodom and Gomorrah should be warning enough to us. I believe only prayer will avert a possible catastrophe.

Posted by Jennifer on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 3:06 PM (EST):

Mark - I just wanted to sat thank you for being a beacon of light. Because of your articles and back and forth dialog the commenters (for me it started with your peices on the dropping of the bombs on Japan a few years back, which at first I did not agree with you about)that I was able to really start to examine myself and view things in the terms you stated here. When you posted that peice prior to this about Newt, I understood where you were coming from, and appreciated the fact that I had come to the same conclusion prior to knowing your postition. This article further confirms that for me. I will be voting my conscience come Nov 2012. That way even when all the fraud in voting occurs, between God and myself, we will know what really matters. One other thing, I’ve noticed in the comments of the last post that brought on this article many bring up this notion of holding someone accountable for past indiscretions as not being forgiving. But it is my understanding that forgiveness has nothing to do with forgetting. And it seems to me that the best thing for Newt, if I were my brother’s keeper, is to not vote him into a position where he is tempted by the same things that he’s weak to, that caused him to sin in the past. That’s not being unforgiving, that’s being prudent in my opinion. What say you?

Posted by Del on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 3:06 PM (EST):

News flash! There are no “proportionate reasons” in the upcoming elections. The Holy Father is simply speaking in theory. Practically speaking both likely Repub candidates (Romney or Gingrich) are against abortion. Regardless if they are for torutre, war, death penalty, guns, securing the borders, abolition of welfare, etc…a Catholic in good conscience, MUST vote for one of these two against the radically pro-abort Obama.

Posted by Mr. Scenario on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 3:01 PM (EST):

Voting is not primarily a statement of one’s political philosophy; it is a civic act. It is Caesar’s denarius, not the widow’s mite. Voting is the responsibility of citizens. As citizens, we are doing something very practical for the good of our country: selecting leaders. Our vote’s end is to put the best possible leaders in office. This virtually always means voting for someone with whom we have serious disagreements. A civic minded voter is like a father who gives up trying to find the perfect job in order to take work that will support his family.
Mr. Shea needlessly inserts antagonism between what might be called the “objective end” of voting (selecting leaders) and its “subjective end” (sanctification of one’s soul). The way to care for one’s soul is not to turn inward and to minimize the importance of one’s actions. We grow holy by doing our everyday duties well. Our duty in voting is to try to get the best leaders we can. It is not a duty to either express ourselves or to educate politicians and future politicians. That is critically important, but the time and place for it is outside of the ballot box.

Posted by Brian Killian on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 2:48 PM (EST):

1. Life issues are proportionate to abortion. Or, abortion is proportionate to abortion (It’s not inconceivable that a pro-choice candidate might inadvertently serve a pro-life cause or goal despite his beliefs).

2. That one candidate supports less grave evil than another is a proportionate reason to vote for that candidate.

3. It’s less about beliefs than about consequences.

4. When the conditions specified by Ratzinger are satisfied, the object of the will is not the evil that is foreseen, but the relative good that is hoped for in voting for him/her. Therefore, it’s not true that you are “in some sense choosing evil”.

Posted by Tom on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 2:47 PM (EST):

Mark Shea, I’m not concerned about the media and certainly the Pope is not. I get it and so does the Pope. My specific point is, give me a “proportionate reason” that is more important than life itself? There’s no follow up and that’s the frustration. Give me some examples. I realize that if a person votes for a candidate, only to find out later that the candidate actually does support abortion (this defines Gingrich), that they have not committed a sin. This does not excuse any voter, with full knowledge of a candidate, from voting for a candidate that actively supports abortion because they feel that candidate will create more jobs, or stop illegal drugs, or balance the budget, etc… Newt actively supports the democrat cause and is not eligible for my, or any practicing Catholic, vote. The same goes for Obama, Romney and Huntsman. If this were the 1800s, then I can understand how a voter could get tripped up, but this is the 21st century. You can Google any candidate and find their position on any issue. The only eligible candidates at this point are Paul, Bachmann and Santorum. All three are very strong candidates and I think Santorum has a good chance if his handlers help him make the right decisions. Paul is to old and angry and Bachmann will just become another Palin in the media.

Mr. Shea,
First, I love our pope, and I agree with his analysis on casting votes.
My point is many-sided. First, I worry about the serious problem of the vagueness of Catholic teaching on social issues. So many of our popes’ teachings are just too fuzzy to really be called “teachings,” and they leave too much room for good Catholics to go wrong by interpreting them in any way they choose. As you said, there is the possibility that a Catholic could, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abort/pro-euth pol if “THEY THINK they have proportionate reasons to do so.” That, to me is problematic—it’s just too loose and almost a cop-out to free oneself from fundamental Catholic teaching.
Second, I think that far too many American Catholics take advantage of that problem and have chosen politics over their faith. It works both on the left and right, but it should be obvious that with progressive Catholics (can you really be such an thing?), politics trumps faith. Indeed, politics trumps truth. It’s the tribalism you talk about. I live amongst some very smart and compassionate Catholics who know darn-well what the Church says about abortion (but they haven’t asked the deeper questions of why), and they excuse a straight-ticket vote for their party, a party that has within its very platform explicitly stated their support for a fundamental evil that goes directly against the clear teaching of the Church.
Third, I was trying to show the Screwtape tactics that have twisted the fundamental social teachings of the Church (the defense and protection of life and family), making those teachings RELATIVE rather than primary. The loss of first principles and understanding why they matter is the reason we are in the mess we’re in. Well-done, Screwtape.
Lastly, you and I have a common hero, GK Chesterton. It seems like I’m always asking ‘What would Chesterton say?’ on these and other issues. I agree that voting affects our personal souls, but as Chesterton says, “A nation is a society that has a soul; when a society has two souls, there is and ought to be civil war. For anything which has a dual personality is certainly mad and probably possessed by devils.”

Posted by Ann on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 2:07 PM (EST):

Mark Shea,

Did Tom call journalists “stupid?” I didn’t see that word in his comment.

I agree with Tom. As the Pope is THE MOST recognizable public figure in the world, his words, past and present, are extremely vulnerable to misinterpretation. As Catholics, our task is certainly to listen to what Cdl. Ratzinger actually says. But the rest of the world, including those publicising his statements, don’t do this. That is what makes statements like the one quoted so frustrating. Certainly, there is nothing proportionate enough to justify abortion or euthenasia.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 1:58 PM (EST):

Hermit:

I have said times without number I will never vote for a pro-abort (which basically means any Democrat running for high office). Is there some way I need to elaborate on that fundamental point when my entire audience here already agrees with me? Shall I cut and paste the same sentence a hundred times to prove I really mean it?

It’s not really complicated. When your audience already agrees with you that they will not vote for a candidate you will not vote for you don’t need to say a lot. But when your audience does not agree with you, you have to explain your reasoning in much more detail. As I made clear in this article, I don’t believe there *is* a greater good that would justify voting for a pro-abort pol. Why then do you ignore me, “read between the lines”, and discern some sinister support for Pelosi and Sebelius?. Just read the lines. I. Will. Never. Vote. for. A. Pro-Abort.

Mr Shae,
Bravo for your explanation. It is a long time coming.
Your cocept of proportion is perceptive.
However, considering the millions of lives lost and the persecution of the Church being dome by “Democrats” today vs the tens of lives lost ( in past times) by the “torture” you constantly refer to; your disproportionate “commentaries” on the “Republicans” shows you do not follow the rule of propotionality you site, either.
I would like to see a similiar commentary by you on the political party of death (Democrats) with as many citings and harsh vocabulary. Unless they are all off the hook because they (Liberal catholiks like Pelosi and Sebulus) are focused on some ‘greater good’....what ever is the current flavor today, abortion, euthanisia, killing the babies of the wrong sex, or color, or other excuse.
How about it, eaqual time…once, with your usual Chesterton like verbage and length?
The Hermit of Littleton

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 1:40 PM (EST):

Mark:

I’m not clear what you are saying. How can somebody be in opposition to something and then tell people they can choose any of those things and define them however they like? I get the impression you are complaining about Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter, now that it is clear it leaves open the possibility that somebody might vote for a pro-abort/pro-euthanasia pol if they think they have proportionate reason to do so. But I’m not sure. Is that what you mean? In which case, are you seriously suggesting Cdl. Ratzinger is the mouth of Satan? If not, I’d appreciate a clarification since I’m having trouble parsing your meaning.

Posted by Mark on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 1:11 PM (EST):

You know what I’d do if I were the author of death, trying to sucker all those compassionate Catholics to vote my way, trying to obscure the fact that THE foundational civil rights and moral issue of our time is the defense of LIFE and FAMILY, trying to push my agenda of soul-killing collectivism forward, trying to do everything the Catholic Church explicitly condemns?
I’d make it clear that I stand in righteous opposition to torture, war, poverty, inequality, intolerance, injustice, hate, racism, homophobia… . And I’d let those doe-eyed Catholics know that they could, with intellectual integrity and a spiritual honesty, choose any of those things, define them in any way they like, vote for me, and be perfectly in line with Catholic teaching and have no worries about the fate of their eternal souls. That ought to do it.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 1:08 PM (EST):

Tom:

You can’t approach the nuanced statements of a thinker like Ratzinger filled with the worry “But what will stupid journalists say?” Who cares what stupid journalists say? Stupid journalists say that Mary was an unwed mother. Stupid journalists say that Thomas Aquinas approved of abortion. Stupid journalists say stupid things. Our task is to listen to what Ratzinger actually says (which is perfectly sensible) and not worry about how dumb people might misunderstand it or dishonest people might twist it.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 1:03 PM (EST):

Filius:

No. I’ve done no such analysis. By the time it comes up on the ballot in Washington, I expect any candidate I could consider will have been weeded out (unless Ron Paul winds up as a third party candidate). Under no circumstances will I vote for Newt or any other candidate who advances policies that are gravely immoral. (Besides, I’m highly skeptical Newt will be an issue a year from now, unless the GOP is insane. Democrats are praying on their knees that he will be the Republican nominee. That should give the GOP pause.) No. I don’t think the CA guide is inconsistent with the Church. My point here is rather that we need to move away from thinking about how our vote affects the outcome of an election (since it doesn’t) and think rather about how it changes us.

Posted by Tom on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 12:57 PM (EST):

As a shill for the democrat party, Newt Gingrich is a perfect example of whom the Pope speaks. Newt has supported many liberal causes, but he does profess to be pro-life and has sponsored some bills restricting abortions. So I can see why people would vote for him. However, he’s still supporting the democrat party. Since the democrat party “is” the problem, then I cannot consciously vote for a candidate (regardless of party affiliation) that supports the democrats. In this upcoming election, I can understand why someone would vote for Newt. He’s not the best, but he’s much better than Obama. On the other hand, if your “proportionate reasons” include something other than abortion, how can you call yourself a Catholic? In my own personal voting choice, I have to consider abortion as my primary proportionate reason, everything else is insignificant. I would never vote for a candidate based on their economic or foreign policy prowess if they supported abortion. When candidates profess to be pro-abortionists, they never improve the economy or foreign relations or gun rights, etc… I see the Pope’s statement as confusing and I think most Americans will find this comment difficult to understand. Since only a small percentage of Americans vote with their conscience, most usually vote an issue, then it’s not likely we will see any big improvements in our personal or religious lives. That’s what makes the Pope’s statement so frustrating to me. I realize he’s discerning Catholic doctrine for the sake of Catholics. Unfortunately, most people will never see this. The secular media will spin this as “Pope says it’s OK to vote for abortion”

Posted by Sam Schmitt on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 12:27 PM (EST):

Cdl. Ratzinger does not say that there could be proportionate reasons for voting for Obama, but that there could be proportionate reasons for voting for a candidate who supports abortion and euthanasia. Whether or not Obama is that candidate, Ratzinger does not say. He only gives the general principle, not its application.

What reasons could be proportionate in the face of the killing of innocent children? Having said this, I agree that we cannot judge people who have voted for Obama. I do not judge their subjective guilt, but do judge that they are objectively mistaken.

Posted by filiusdextris on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 12:24 PM (EST):

“In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the “non-negotiable” issues.

In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.”
-Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics (Catholic Answers)

Mark, have you done any “available candidate” analysis? Has anyone? That might be a good topic for a next blog. Am I an available candidate for an election if my name can be merely written in? if I completed the formal requirements for ballot presence but have not campaigned at all? if I’m expected not to get 1% of the vote by surveys? 10%? 25%? Under what circumstances under an “availability” standard would you vote for Newt, or do you reject CA’s position as somehow inconsistent with the Church? Is availability an objective or subjective standard?

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 12:09 PM (EST):

Interesting about the etymology. I did not know that. Makes me feel like I’m on the right track! Thanks Deacon Nathan!

Nicely done, Mark. I think it is instructive that our word ‘vote’ comes from the same root word as ‘vow’, ‘votive’, and ‘votary’: the Latin word votum, which originally meant a promise to a god, solemn pledge, or religious engagement. From that etymology, it would seem strange to vote for the lesser of two evils since choosing the lesser of two evils is still in some sense choosing evil, and one does not offer something evil to God.

You know that election never felt like I was even given a choice. More like being held hostage. You have a very good perspective on politics lately just want to encourage you to keep presenting it. It really has me thinking more Catholic like I’m casting off the shackles of life with a political mindset. It really has me thinking.

Posted by Arnobius of Sicca on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 11:08 AM (EST):

It seems to me that when it comes to voting against the greatest evil, we do not downplay other evils. Rather we recognize that one candidate does more harm than another and that harm needs to be opposed first.

Now when it comes to the issue of torture (which is made less clear by the fact that the Church has never made a statement on whether waterboarding is torture that I am aware of though I wish she would), there are some differences to consider:

1) Whether waterboarding is torture.
2) Regardless of whether it may be defined as torture, Whether the proponents of waterboarding try to push it in the same way as the current administration pushes undisputed grave evils.
3) Regardless of whether it may be defined as torture, Whether those who support the use of waterboarding will do the same spiritual and moral harm to the nation as those who advocate abortion and trying to force the Church institutions to take part in issues she calls grave evils or cease to function.

The answers are:

1) I don’t know. It is an issue which has been disputed among learned Catholics of good faith and has never been defined to the best of my knowledge. (and I ask, in all sincerity, if you know of a Church document that I overlooked which says otherwise, please let me know)
2) No.
3) No.

Therefore I conclude that, barring any changes to candidate positions, right now the current administration is the greater evil that needs to be opposed—though if the opposition is elected we still need to press them to keep their promises as well as press them to abandon positions which are also wrong, even though lesser evils.

Finally, please don’t think I am saying, “The Church didn’t say ‘Waterboarding = torture.’ Therefore it is good.” I oppose waterboarding, but I simply don’t know if it is considered torture in the eyes of the Church.

Posted by Franklin on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 10:55 AM (EST):

Mark
I see that you do say so, sorry I overlooked it with all my thinking on what you wrote while reading it.

For what its worth tho not related to the principles so much but kind of like your laying out. I did live in Louisiana when impeached govener Edwin Edwards got out of prison and ran against David Duke former KKK leader (only in Lousiana) and did not vote. How could I with those choices. Edwards won, went back to his old tricks and back to prison. I believe he is still there.

Posted by David on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 10:39 AM (EST):

Well done I think this essay explains your thinking very well, although you’ve not quite convinced me to vote third party. I currently have no enthusiasm for any candidate.

Posted by James on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 10:09 AM (EST):

I think in general, in response to that question, the answer is no. Even if it did it would not reduce abortion much since most abortions (per PP reasearch) is that abortions are generally performed for reasons other than poverty.

Add to that the current promotion of Gay marriage by Obama and his administration as well as his announcement today that the US will actively promote gay rights (read gay marriage) internationally, that social justice really calls upon us not to vote for Obama.

Now the question becomes, who to vote for.

Posted by James on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 10:00 AM (EST):

Though, as prudence is judgment in accord with the facts, we should now address the question of whether reducing poverty actually reduces abortions (what I believe most Catholics who voted for Obama argued.)

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 9:36 AM (EST):

Franklin:

I agree and say as much in the article. I can’t think of any proportional reason to vote for Obama. I merely note that Cdl. Ratzinger admits that there is such a possibility and therefore calls for charity for those who do since we cannot know their reasoning (unless, of course, they tell us).

Posted by Confederate Papist on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 8:58 AM (EST):

Arkanabar,

That’s because Rove became one of the elite and is part of the GOP Establishment Fourth Column. If he said the sky was blue, I’d run to the window and look. He’s responsible for the destruction of real candidates in this race and will make darned sure the Rich Android will be the GOP fall guy for Obama.

Posted by Matthew on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 8:56 AM (EST):

Mr Shea,
It seems amid all of the intense debating and arguing, all the name-calling and high emotions, that your true intentions are suddenly laid bare for all to see. Your honesty, fidelity to the Church, and your wisdom stand out in stark contrast to the surrounding chaos. And although your fire and bold opinions may strike many as jarring, please know that is only jarring precisely because it is so uncommon to encounter that type of unbending determination and courage. May God bless you and may you always strive to allow God to do His will through you. Keep the faith, brother!

Posted by Arkanabar on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 8:39 AM (EST):

Marthe,
back when Karl Rove was chief campaign strategist, that would have affected the Republican Party. He had no interest in gaining Democrat or Independent votes. He wanted to get Republicans to vote Republican, and when they didn’t, he wanted to know why. But in these days, nobody in the Republican Party listens to Karl Rove any more.

Posted by Franklin on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 8:28 AM (EST):

But what were the proportional reasons for voting for Obama in spite of his radical position on abortion? Torture, if it were as wide spread but it’s currently not even close to the millions of lives lost by abortion. Certainly both must end and I will do my part to help end both but is it proportional? Apart from torture nothing seems able to make a claim to being proportionate.

Posted by Marthe Lépine on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 7:47 AM (EST):

I read a few weeks ago, in the comments following another article, but I cannot remember if the article was by Mark or someone else, and given the large number of comments that are sometimes offered, it would be difficult for me to take the time just now to find it… However, that particular comment made a lot of sense for me. It said that if people choose to vote for a candidate from a 3rd or 4th party, it is not necessarily a lost vote because that candidate has little chance of winning. The argument was that, if a few hundreds of people choose to vote outside of the larger or better known parties, and vote instead for a person who appears to have no chance, in the long run it would still make a difference. When the large parties see that the vote is getting divided that way, it suggests to them that in fact there is a problem somewhere and if they do not want to lose even more votes the next time, they should maybe try to find out what those few hundred people do not like. It may seem that change would take too long to come in that way, but in the long run, over the course of a number of elections, some of the policies that turn off voters (including favoring some intrinsic evil or the other) might eventually be corrected. Instead of a “lost” vote, a vote for a considerably less well known 3rd party or even independent candidate, is a better way to send the message that we are not happy with what is currently “being offered” than to not vote at all. Such a vote is something like a “registered” expression of discontent. I do not know if I have done justice to that previous poster’s opinion (and if he recognizes himself he could correct me), but it is what I have retained of it, and it seems to me to make a lot of sense.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.